128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8971-2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 GURMINDER DHALIWAL ....Petitioner Versus SUDARSHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Kaundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate for the respondents.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by impugned order dated

17.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which evidence of petitioner/plaintiff was closed on failure to conclude evidence despite availing numerous opportunities including five last and final opportunities.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff has argued that petitioner/plaintiff is a widow having twin daughters and not supported by anyone, therefore, could not lead her evidence in affirmative as short dates were being given. It is asserted that petitioner/plaintiff if granted opportunity to lead evidence she shall conclude the same at the earliest. Petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment titled as Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs Vs. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs & Ors.

2024 (4) Law Herald (SC) 3154, Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, Karanvir Singh Aujla Vs. Harinder Kaur & Ors., 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 810, Hotel Lodhi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Ashoka Readymade Store & Anr., 2024 AIR CC 1092, Canara Bank Vs. M/s Bhupinder Hosiery VPO Darbi & Anr., 2024 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 28, Mahendra Pal Jain Vs. Kusum Lata, 2023 (1) Law Herald 664, State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., 1976 AIR (SC) 1177 and Renu Bakshi Vs. Prem Parkash Sharma & Ors., 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 657 in support of her case.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant/respondents, who has put in appearance before the Court has submitted that despite availing more than 20 clear opportunities since 18.12.2023 till 17.11.2025 including 5 final last opportunities subject to cost, petitioner/plaintiff has neither concluded her evidence nor has paid the cost imposed by the Court and, therefore, petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Further it is asserted that after closure of evidence of petitioner/plaintiff, defendant/respondents have already concluded their evidence and defendant/respondent is 80 years old person in whose favour Lok Adalat decree is existing which is being challenged against the statutory provisions which provides that no appeal can be filed against award of Lok Adalat. It is asserted that present suit preferred by petitioner/plaintiff is abuse of process of law and has only been filed to harass defendant/respondents who is 80 years old.

4. On consideration, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P-1). Admittedly, in the present case issues were framed on 21.11.2023, thereafter, matter was fixed for 18.12.2023 for petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence. Matter was adjourned as many as 34 times before passing of impugned order. Perusal of interim orders which have been referred to by both petitioner/plaintiff and defendants/respondents goes to show that petitioner/plaintiff has availed 20 clear opportunities to lead evidence. Court of first instance has clearly had put petitioner/plaintiff on notice by granting five final opportunities and by imposing cost. However, petitioner/plaintiff has taken repeated opportunities lightly. Petitioner/plaintiff has already taken about two years to lead her evidence, therefore, it cannot be held that petitioner/plaintiff was not given sufficient time to conclude her evidence specially if it is seen in light of time taken by defendants/respondents to conclude their evidence.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff was asked whether he is ready to pay substantive cost and lead entire evidence on the date already fixed before the Trial Court, however, petitioner/plaintiff wants that the cost